Royalty Fees: Are You Freaking Out Yet? -1 reply

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Peeping Tom

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

1st March 2003

0 Uploads

2,619 Posts

0 Threads

#1 14 years ago

Yeah, it's begun again. Just like earlier this year (or was it last year?), the commercial sector is crying for royalties. Since I'm not into explaining it, an article I ripped off from some poor writer for PC Mag. __________ "A recent royalty schedule proposed for Internet-only radio stations, if approved, will quickly kill the Internet radio phenomenon. The record industry—which seems to be behind this onerous royalty schedule—is being set up as the fall guy, I suspect. The real culprits? Commercial broadcast stations. The idea is to impose a 0.14-cent royalty on every song streamed over the Internet. The Internet broadcasters were asking to pay less—0.014 cents. The audience for any given Internet radio broadcast is relatively small—if not downright minuscule—compared with the number of listeners a conventional broadcast attract. But even with a small audience, this fee will make the broadcast of music over the Internet unaffordable. After sending out a stream of one thousand songs, the Internet station would owe $1.40—per person. And a station can easily broadcast that many songs every two days. Let's assume a mere thousand listeners. That's $1,400. You get popular, and up it goes. Broadcast stations have listeners in the tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands. An online broadcaster sending out multiple channels of streams could rack up numbers in the millions of dollars per year. This proposed rate comes from a Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel set up by the U.S. Copyright Office, and has been applauded by the record industry, as usual. The RIAA says that this means its artists will finally get paid for these streams. What it should say is that a potential future source of revenue for the record business is simply going to disappear. The artists will end up with nothing, as usual. More laughable is that the recording industry was asking for a 0.40-cent royalty per song for anyone broadcasting over the Internet. This was ludicrous. Meanwhile, any conventional radio station that wants to broadcast its songs over the Net would only be charged 0.07 cents per song, rather than the 0.14 cents charged to Internet-only broadcasters. The rationale behind this is that the radio stations are already paying ASCAP fees, and this makes up for the shortfall. But this additional fee is to be paid directly to the record labels, creating a bookkeeping nightmare unless another ASCAP-like clearinghouse evolves. Also, a system of paying directly to the labels could result in hanky-panky with the numbers. Who will be auditing this? This whole thing is suspicious, and I suspect that the radio stations themselves are behind it all. The record industry just seems too inefficient to be able to get any of this to happen and seems to be merely a stooge for the commercial broadcasters. You have to ask yourself: Who benefits most from the elimination of online radio? Commercial radio, of course. Commercial radio has no real interest in doing Internet broadcasting, because there's no money in it. Even a if commercial radio station increased its reach by millions, the expanded audience wouldn't add one penny to the coffers. Today's radio broadcaster does not run a network selling to a national audience. These broadcasters sell their ads to the locals for local consumption and can't get advertisers to pay a penny more just because the broadcast can be heard in Hong Kong. Furthermore, there are now union strings attached to the advertisements, making it illegal to stream them on the Net. The whole process of Internet broadcasting is just too complicated for conventional broadcasters. The fact is, the Internet-only broadcasters pose a real threat to conventional radio. There is a greater variety of programming and more versatility. Setting up an Internet broadcasting operation is also cheaper, so these broadcasters are more competitive. This is a serious problem for radio broadcasters. The giveaway to what I perceive as a conspiracy involves the 0.07-cent royalty proposed for the commercial broadcasters who do Internet broadcasting, versus the 0.14-cent royalty for those who do Internet-only broadcasting. This difference in royalties is the insurance policy set up on behalf of the commercial broadcasters. If Internet radio becomes so important that it is unstoppable, then the commercial broadcasters will have a huge cost advantage if they have to actually go head-to-head with Internet-only broadcasters. A backup plan is being put in place. If the Internet-only folks are destroyed, I'm certain the 0.07-cent royalty will disappear too. There's another thing to consider when evaluating the current proposal. Taking such a hardcore stance toward Internet radio is unusual, since these Net streams are more like shortwave broadcasts than like digital music-swapping, and the audience is rather small. The Internet broadcasters are not a *******-like threat, and actually provide a marketing tool for the artists by promoting material for free. Never forget that the record industry used to pay stations to play songs, until that was deemed illegal and dubbed payola. Such bribes are still put in place through promotional trickery. Why kill off Internet radio streams? For the supposed benefit of the artists? I doubt it. Killing off these streams isn't going to benefit the artists, that's for sure. If the radio community were as adamant about keeping Internet broadcasting on a growth path as proponents of keeping e-commerce tax-free are, then Internet radio could develop into something. But the sweet deals between the commercial broadcasters and the recording industry won't let that happen. Too bad the copyright office can't see through this scam. " __________ Now, if this does indeed begin to happen, what is HgR to do? Any contingency plans if they try to ask for money from previous broadcasts (which almost happened once before!). Sorry to ruin the laidback nature of HgR, but I think this is an important question to ask.....




Eversmen

Crash Loves ME

50 XP

25th September 2003

0 Uploads

892 Posts

0 Threads

#2 14 years ago

umm ya im not reading all that lol but ya ill just run if they want me to pay money ;)




Fezarella

Lacoste

50 XP

16th December 2002

0 Uploads

6,610 Posts

0 Threads

#3 14 years ago

lol




Your_Dead

Your_Dead doesn't need a title

50 XP

25th September 2003

0 Uploads

75 Posts

0 Threads

#4 14 years ago

well i imagine i would end up in court cause hgr has been streaming songs for 2 years. i think i would probably be good cause i doubt they could prove shit unless shoutcast gave us up. at which point we would simply switch software. all this will do is, you guessed it INCREASE ON-LINE INTEREST. this is the same thing they tried to do to *******. anyone remember that? ******* was still small when the RIAA when after it and the second it hit the news the software EXPLODED in popularity and when it was eventually killed how many more sprang up? hundreds if not thousands did. lets see if you kill shoutcast up comes icecast or icebox i forget the name. and when they kill that someone will program something new. by trying to kill us they will only make us larger. trust me for i know all. :D




Eversmen

Crash Loves ME

50 XP

25th September 2003

0 Uploads

892 Posts

0 Threads

#5 14 years ago

dead i dont care we need people to tunage in




Fezarella

Lacoste

50 XP

16th December 2002

0 Uploads

6,610 Posts

0 Threads

#6 14 years ago

you need tunes that will get ppl to dance :) party-smiley-048.gifparty-smiley-048.gifparty-smiley-048.gif




Eversmen

Crash Loves ME

50 XP

25th September 2003

0 Uploads

892 Posts

0 Threads

#7 14 years ago

oh we got the tunes that will make the people dance




Smitty025

The local Paultard

50 XP

24th May 2003

0 Uploads

6,469 Posts

0 Threads

#8 14 years ago

yea HGR is cool there is something wrong with that smily- however you spell that




Eversmen

Crash Loves ME

50 XP

25th September 2003

0 Uploads

892 Posts

0 Threads

#9 14 years ago

rgr that dude




Your_Dead

Your_Dead doesn't need a title

50 XP

25th September 2003

0 Uploads

75 Posts

0 Threads

#10 14 years ago

seriously strange smiley




  • 1
  • 2